All, being involved in both communities I read this thread with high interest. I agree with the issues raised by Bruce, Jeroen, Daniel, etc. I guess my main issue is adding a competing set of standards within OGC without proper justification and thus weakening the overall position of OGC.
cu Stephan On 05/06/2013 05:11 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: > I am also of the opinion that "single-vendor standards" such as KML and > this GeoServices REST API are turning OGC into a rubber-stamping > organization and this is not what the geospatial community needs. Don't > get me wrong, it is good to see these openly published, but the > publication should be by their owners (Google and ESRI in those case) > and not be rubber-stamped by OGC. > > What the geospatial community needs is an organization that provides > direction around a consistent set of standards that guarantee > interoperability between interchangeable software components. > > The suite of WxS services built over the last 10-15 years is somewhat on > the way of achieving this, even if some pieces still do not interoperate > as smoothly as we wish. Is OGC trying to tell the world that it no > longer believes in WxS? > > OGC and its members need to decide whether they want the OGC logo to be > perceived as the "guarantee of interoperability", or just as a > rubber-stamping organization with a large portfolio of inconsistent > standards. > > Whether your source is open or closed is out of the question here, so I > am not sure that a statement from OSGeo matters unless it is to point at > this obvious slippery slope in which OGC is falling (a movement which > started with KML a few years ago). > > Daniel > > > > On 13-05-06 3:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote: >> All, >> Having read this thread I support what has been said by Adrian, Bruce >> and others. If anything, acceptance of a set of standards that >> basically replicates what W*S standards already do will confuse >> customers. Maybe that is exactly what esri hopes to achieve, it >> definitely doesn't help our (the geospatial community) business. And >> as Bruce states, it will have serious impact on the OGC credibility. >> As OSGeo I can imagine that we then decide to start our own >> standardization process and build a standards brand around OSGeo >> products. Not a nice perspective, let's hope OGC won't go down that >> route. >> Jeroen >> >> On 6 mei 2013, at 01:08, bruce.bannerman.osgeo >> <bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Cameron, >>> >>> My personal opinion is that if this proposal was accepted, it would >>> be a bad move for OGC. >>> >>> Remember that OGC is a community and its Technical Committee >>> membership are the people who vote on the acceptance of Standards. >>> The TC comprises many different organisations. >>> >>> >>> I do understand that OGC are trying to be inclusive in their >>> processes and to try and cater for alternative approaches to a >>> problem, much the same as OSGeo does in supporting multiple projects >>> that essentially handle similar use cases (e.g. GeoServer, MapServer >>> and Degree). >>> >>> I have also personally witnessed ESRI's commitment to helping to >>> further the development of Open Spatial Standards through their work >>> on OGC Working Groups and at OGC Technical Committee meetings. >>> >>> ESRI also have made a valid point in their response to the 'NO' vote >>> for the GeoServices REST API that the OGC has already allowed >>> alternate approaches with the acceptance of netCDF as a data format >>> and KML as a combined data/presentation format. >>> >>> With the GeoServices REST API, I think that the approach proposed: >>> >>> - is very divisive for the OGC community. >>> - essentially appears to propose an alternate way for working with >>> spatial services that does not utilise or build on the W*S suite of >>> services that have been developed through robust community processes >>> for in excess of a decade. >>> - does not provide REST bindings to the W*S suite of standards that >>> have been widely implemented in a range of software. >>> - will result in confusion within the user community that are trying >>> to utilise 'OGC' services. >>> >>> >>> If this approach were to be adopted, I believe that OGC will go too >>> far down the alternate solution approach and will risk losing its >>> public acceptance as one of the key leaders of open spatial standards. >>> >>> >>> I'm interested in hearing other OSGeo members opinions as to how this >>> proposal would affect their projects. >>> >>> Would you consider implementing the GeoServices REST API within your >>> projects? >>> >>> If you did, would you maintain support for both it and traditional >>> W*S services? >>> >>> Bruce >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss